A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.

I don't want to sound like I'm attacking just because I don't agree (which seems relatively common around here and the Interwebs).

First, I think the language question is a bit loaded. I wouldn't be in the purist crowd, but it should be ok to defend language against drastic changes. Fast evolution isn't always best, and change for a reason is better than just change

On to Apple: If you're to believe them, OSX is _not_ their product, the MacBook is. The iPhone is. The iPod is. They're making money off of the hardware. They just happen to have made an OS for it that some people really like.

When they sell an upgrade to the OS, I think their charge is nominal. How does the cost of an OSX upgrade compare to Windows?

I do kind of want Apple to be forced to deal with Psystar or whoever else, but if that's the case, I _don't_ think I should have access to a heavily subsidized price that's meant for people who paid for the _actual_ product.